[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9c2069d590bed05d82d60f49deef5796c73d5022.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 13:09:04 +0200
From: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v5 1/4] PCI: Clean up pci_scan_slot()
On Thu, 2022-06-02 at 12:30 +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> While determining the next PCI function is factored out of
> pci_scan_slot() into next_fn() the former still handles the first
> function as a special case. This duplicates the code from the scan loop.
>
> Furthermore the non ARI branch of next_fn() is generally hard to
> understand and especially the check for multifunction devices is hidden
> in the handling of NULL devices for non-contiguous multifunction. It
> also signals that no further functions need to be scanned by returning
> 0 via wraparound and this is a valid function number.
>
> Improve upon this by transforming the conditions in next_fn() to be
> easier to understand.
>
> By changing next_fn() to return -ENODEV instead of 0 when there is no
> next function we can then handle the initial function inside the loop
> and deduplicate the shared handling. This also makes it more explicit
> that only function 0 must exist.
>
> No functional change is intended.
>
> Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
> Signed-off-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
> drivers/pci/probe.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
Just a friendly ping, I resent last week but this is still the same
PATCH as originally sent on May 5.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists